User:DCDuring/Annotation of How to resolve conflicts on Wiktionary
How to resolve conflicts on Wiktionary
[edit]Explanation of coding:
- Opinion:Not entirely off point.
- Clarification:Sought or given
- Personal:Person mentioned by name or pronoum reference, not necessarily derogatory
- NewInfo:Information of some kind with a source
- Support:Favorable comment on another's contribution
- Process:Observation about the discussion
- Defensive:Either from something in this discussion or prior interaction.
- Eval:An evaluative remark, positive or negative, related to the topic
- Response:Usually to a specific question asked with a ping.
- ?:uncertainty about the coding or the meaning of the passage.
Thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more, or a hair less, in his beard, than thou hast[.] — William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Throughout the lifetime of this online dictionary, there have been plenty of conflicts between users. Some of this is unlikely to end any time soon, such as the fight between admins and vandals. This fight has a clear "good guy" and "bad guy", unlike some of the other fights we have had over the years. These morally-conflicting fights often turn into virtual bloodbaths, with people hurling vicious insults at each other, at each other throats over who's harassing who or if some person should be banned. While these are important conversations to have, too often is the main point ignored in favor of calling people "idiots". This problem has been pointed out before [cf Beer Parlour July 2023 § "please reduce the heat"], but nothing seems to be done on the topic, and we seem to keep going in circles, never reaching the point where we can have civilized discussions.
I intend to change that. Please, leave your thoughts as to how we can avoid any future conflicts for good. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion: In principle, there is no way to stop all conflict, of course, but a really good start would be an expectation of civility and admins enforcing that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Would that just be the way to end all heated conflicts? CitationsFreak (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion: Clearly not all of us have the same standards for civility and for the need for civility in all interactions with others. Further, some don't seem to care much about feedback from others about their behavior. In some cases, people seem to get very annoyed that others might be potentially causing them to waste their precious time, taking them away from their sacred mission to improve Wiktionary, by their lights. I'm pretty sure that the folks whose behavior I most object to are supremely confident that they are right and that civility is for others who are not on the sacred mission they have defined. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion: Pobody's nerfect and no system is perfect, but it's a start. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Would that just be the way to end all heated conflicts? CitationsFreak (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion: Conflicts are not always bad if people are arguing about somethin they both care about. I guess that the biggest problem is when people are call each other bad words when arguing about some stupid stuff like a definition of a sand broom, without caring about anyone’s input. It feels that they are either too much drunk or too little. However, luckily, it’s not happening so often. Tollef Salemann (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal: I think @Theknightwho should try to make an effort to participate in drama less. I think we can be reasonable and agree that nothing good came out of engaging with Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/May#Stalking/harassment by User:Theknightwho which was a pretty obvious (yet successful) attempt to fan up drama. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:@Ioaxxere Sure, but there needs to be a way to resolve issues that doesn't just amount to ignoring them. Theknightwho (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion,New info: Yeah, Help:Dispute resolution doesn't offer much guidance except, hilariously, relax and do something more important and assume that they [the other user you're disputing about] are eccentric and will thus never be able to see eye to eye with you. Hardly worthy of a Nobel peace prize. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- ping: @WordyAndNerdy: Do you have feedback here? I'd value it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Personal:It isn't feasible to "avoid any future conflicts for good." Such an approach will only worsen conflicts that inevitably emerge. Ignoring problems doesn't resolve them. It's like putting a lid on a pot and expecting it not to make a huge mess when it boils over. If TKW had been given guidance at an early stage, this issue may not have grown to this extent. Now there's at least five productive contributors (me, Huhu9001, LlywelynII, Mahāgaja, Purplebackback89) who find his admin conduct to be a recurrent issue. Wiktionary desperately needs both formal dispute resolution processes and the willingness to enact them. This isn't about "fan[ning] up drama." Seeing it characterised as such with no pushback (except from TKW, to his credit) does little to reassure me that Wiktionary is interested in having difficult conversations as a community and making necessary systemic changes. I have noted that TKW hasn't been as combative as in past incidents. That gives me hope that there's room for course correction. But my continued participation here is contingent on resolving the current policy vacuum. We cannot have a repeat of an admin (Equinox) functionally being given carte blanche to be as hostile and combative as he pleases for years because he also makes valuable contributions. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Huhu and Purple have both been criticized for not being productive. Mahāgaja's complaint has been addressed as their behavior was problematic. Please don't ignore these aspects in your diagnosis. Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Also LlywelynII has been heavily criticized for being sloppy. The term "productive" is being used too loosely here. Vininn126 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Huhu9001 seems to do solid work in the Japanese language area and in template-space. My understanding is that the dispute between TKW and Huhu9001 arose over changes that TKW made to modules that ended up unintentionally breaking things. So, if LlywelynII can be faulted for "being sloppy," so can TKW. Purple has been around as long as I have. Wiktionary has shown habitually sloppy editors (Luciferwildcat) the door before. I wouldn't necessarily number Purple among them. In any case, the common denominator in these disputes is TKW, not anything any editor did to get on his radar. It also needs to be underscored that all of these disputes were unrelated. TKW has found himself at the centre of multiple heated disputes with unconnected editors working in different areas of this project. That isn't a coincidence. It's a sign of a pattern of escalating and personalising conflicts. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:This only half-addresses the issues I raised with hand-waiving. A user frequently (I admit, too frequently) addressing sloppiness in others' edits does not make their edits not sloppy. From Purple I have seen 10x more drama and the issue "is a hot-dog a sandwich", which I'd hardly call productive. Huhu has been criticized by others, as well, and is known to be abrasive in conversations. So no, it's not just knight there, it's also an uncooperative personality. I find your reply to be lacking. Vininn126 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:Isn't this thread now devolving into precisely the kind of escalation that it was designed to stop? Theknightwho (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:This seems like a seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees situation at best. Whether a rank-and-file contributor is insisting hot dogs qualify as sandwiches (if subs are sandwiches, so are hot dogs, FWIW) is perpendicular to the issue of problematic admins. Huhu9001 having been "abrasive" at some point doesn't justify an admin becoming hostile in kind. It absolutely did not justify TKW implementing a blatantly retaliatory block against Huhu last year. Admins have more power than rank-and-file editors. They need to be held to a higher standard of conduct accordingly. They absolutely shouldn't take administrative action in disputes in which they are personally involved. Admins aren't frontier sheriffs. They shouldn't be making and enforcing policy at their own own discretion. Power necessitates accountability and a certain level of restraint. What has been core policy on every other WMF project for decades shouldn't be weirdly controversial here. We shouldn't have a culture in which everyone nods along as an editor (not TKW, to be clear) with a history of inserting Daily Stormer quotes votes against an anti-harassment proposal with inane blather about "wokery" and the suggestion that PB89 seek "treatment for paranoia." This is discussion is doing nothing to relieve my sense that Wiktionary loves being a boys' club. It really does seem that some users will be forgiven any trespass, however severe, while others, no matter how much good work they do, will be summarily dismissed and denigrated and blamed for inviting the hostility to which they've been subjected. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:1) An admin doing their job by addressing sloppy edits is a good thing.
- Personal:2) Fayfreak’s point about “wokery” seems à propos given your throwing out questionable accusations of misogyny and now, apparently, Nazism. Apparently pointing out that a user is being a bit high maintenance means one must hate women. And pulling a random collection of usage examples from Google that happens to include some kind of far-right tabloid rubbish means you might as well be merrily goose-stepping and Heil Hitlering your way to the Reichstag. Nicodene (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal/Process:Ugh, User:Nicodene, you are not doing yourself any favors with this post, and you are aptly illustrating User:WordyAndNerdy's point about Wiktionary being a boy's club. Benwing2 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Also, IMO Fay Freak is in a class of their own with their weird views (and contorted syntax). They know a ton about obscure languages but tend to go off on bizarre rants/tangents that are best ignored; I would not hold them up as an example to be emulated. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:@Benwing2 Given that neither I nor WAN are happy about this, it seems fairly clear that the underlying issue is not that this is an old boys' club, but that there is no adequate way to resolve conflicts, because consequences are essentially arbitrary, and there is a culture of admins allowing things to peter out instead of actively drawing things to a close. WAN has concluded it's because of nepotism because she's only considering me (and now, apparently Fay Freak), but doesn't seem to realise that she's got away with quite a lot of disruptive behaviour herself, and it's not like people haven't noticed ([1]). Theknightwho (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Defensive:Name one example of "disruptive behaviour" on my part. Since I'm allegedly guilty of so many you ought to be able to name one. Our clashes at shitgibbon and cupsona don't count. Neither of us behaved with the decorum we ought to in both instances. I've never deleted the main page. I don't habitually insert nonsense into entries. I don't add translations for languages I don't know. I think the most dust I've ever kicked up is over a user having a Patreon in 2015 and the weird resistance to accepting online cites in 2020-2022. And in both cases I just voiced my opinions and left for a time. Rather the opposite of "disruption," I'd say. Unless you're insinuating that not contributing is itself a form of disruption. In any case, you're deflecting again. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:@Theknightwho I agree with all your points about the problems with Wiktionary (and I think Nicodene's comments were inappropriate). I do not think User:WordyAndNerdy's attempt to get you desysopped soon after Huhu9001's attempt was called for, and I said that at the time; but at the same time it's hard not to notice how multiple times, WAN has made a statement about something problematic in Wiktionary, and expressed a fear of getting subjected to denigration and hostility for expressing this, and someone then proceeded to come out and do exactly that.
- Opinion,Proposal: As for a more systematic way of resolving conflicts, we definitely need that; but at the same time I don't think there's any appetite for a Wikipedia-style legalistic approach. IMO it has to be more mediation-based than arbitration-based, with arbitration-style "let's lay down the law" as a last resort. I think a good start would be maybe something like this: (1) a more clearly expressed code of conduct that clearly prohibits bigoted remarks, and gives examples of reasonable punishments for transgressions that admins (or bureaucrats if an admin is the transgressor) can make; (2) some sort of "appeal" process if one or the two sides (transgressor or transgressee) feels they're not getting fair treatment or their concerns aren't being heard or addressed. My hope is to avoid long, drawn out processes in the vast majority of cases, because IMO people here don't have the time or energy for this. Benwing2 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support:I am in full support of your plan. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eval:@Benwing2 I'd like to avoid long, drawn out processes as well, but I'd prefer them over long, drawn out threads where everyone gets angry and nothing gets done. Theknightwho (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support:I'd support this as well. AG202 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eval:Proposal: @User:Benwing2 I think that "bigoted remarks", problematic though they are, are not the source of all the bad behavior that policy needs to address. More common are uses of derogatory labeling of people as, eg, idiots, morons, drama queens, even when cleverly or humorously worded. The emphasis in establishing a behavioral norm like "No personal attacks" has to be on personal. We may need a total ban on personal attacks (including accusations of Naziism, geneder bias, etc). Enforcement of such a ban couldn't be on a hair-trigger, but it would point in the right direction. A single personal attack should require an apology or temporary block; multiple personal attacks, say, over the course of 12 months would earn longer blocks, etc. I'm not sure about how to enforce better behavior by admins and veteran users (and their bots, templates, and modules). DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Calling out someone for using racist/misogynistic/etc. language or linking to a neo-Nazi site in an entry isn't a "personal attack." Usually such call-outs are backed up by diffs demonstrating said behaviour. As a community we need to be able to discuss inappropriate conduct in order to effectively mitigate it. You nailed your colours to the mast long ago.[2][3][4] WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Did I say it was? Whatever evil we attribute to such behavior would not justify attacking the person as a Nazi or an advocate of Nazism. We should be calling out the behavior, not the person, no matter what. I am proud to advocate freedom of expression, toleration, and universal coverage of English expressions in Wiktionary based on uniform standards of attestation and idiomaticity, regardless of the source or meaning. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:You're off-the-mark on this front, I think, but I do respect you haven't been combative about it, and I do get the sense your take is born of principle. It's why I don't consider you a problem admin even if I regard your thinking as totemic of Wiktionary's systemic issues. Some of my reaction here may be that your initial comment was posted in "mostly unproductive." There's agreement that Nicodene's comments toward me in there crossed a line and -sche putting a lid on that is the main reason I've felt comfortable returning to this discussion.
- Opinion:Protecting individual freedom of expression shouldn't be a pressing concern on a crowd-sourced dictionary project. (Government censorship regimes OTOH can make our mission more difficult). No one's legal rights are infringed by a website setting standards on the type of speech permitted on the site itself. People still have a legal right to express their views on other platforms and in other contexts. Wiktionary is functionally a professional setting. Many employers maintain some type of code of conduct. Letting employees freely spout off their opinions will very likely create a hostile work environment. Our unvarnished thoughts aren't always helpful. I'm sure no one here wants to read my random thoughts on tax reform, ongoing military conflicts, etc. But sometimes uncomfortable conversations are necessary for change to occur or for problems to be rectified. We can't discuss individual user conduct issues if we can't name the specific problems some users present. It isn't a personal attack to characterise someone's speech as "racist" etc. If we treat it as such, all we'll be doing is ensuring that marginalised voices go unheard, as the majority is often resistant to putting its own biases under a microscope.
- Defensive?:Personal:I also haven't advocated disallowing the inclusion of offensive terms. A lot of Category:English 4chan slang and Category:English incel slang is my work. I do think there are middle-ground interpretations of "Wiktionary is not censored." There is a lot of distance between having [slur] as an entry and including a quote featuring [slur] in some random entry like umbrella. The former is objectively documenting language as it exists. The latter is an unnecessary and inflammatory editorial choice. The Daily Stormer quote shoehorned into smash wasn't for a specifically neo-Nazi/white supremacist sense. It was for a sense that was a synonym of hottie (“attractive person”). This is why I long ago concluded that Fay is an edgelord. Edgelords don't necessarily personally endorse the views they express. For many it's about stirring up trouble for the lulz. But -sche seems to think think Fay may be the real deal, and I do trust his expertise in this area. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Expertise indeed, didn’t he graduate with a PhD in identifying Nazi lexicographers?
- Personal:Accusation:Frankly it looks like you’re bullying a person who may not be entirely neurotypical, wielding “they’re an X-ist!” as a cudgel to smash someone you dislike into submission. Nicodene (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Defensive @Nicodene: She also underrates that I am not a native speaker and was triangulating new definitions, that I wouldn’t know how specifically saucy or redpilled it is or not. Lacking intercultural competence in an international dictionary. Where would I have looked, amongst all bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, to find all bymeanings and implications, huh, WordyAndNerdy? All was gained inductively, the gold-standard of documenting language for a dictionary. For these movement-kind of words multiple people had to guess around because they were previously uncovered, cf. slam later written in Feb 2022 by me.
- Defensive: And then rather than trying to be edgy I wasn’t too happy to quote that guy so that’s why I hedged and balanced it with other quotes and Wikipedia links for author and publication where you already read “far-right, conspiracy theorist, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist, Islamophobic, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial”; that was all I could, save not including it, which wasn’t compelling, since dictionaries nowadays are notoriously not SFW unless defined otherwise, but the quote read so easy and illustrative! And since I had not studied psychology consciously to guesstimate the tribalization programs hinging on references, it was barely possible to be concerned; I say concerned but not bothered because I have only an cognitive simulation of what happens in others, which I note is a bit extreme in WordyAndNerdy.
- This day I read p. 63:
- ?: > Carter and her colleagues (2012) were interested in investigating the ability of children with ASD to make judgments about pictured social interactions. The pictured scenarios did not require the use of language and both the children with ASD and those with typical development accurately identified the situations that depicted inappropriate social interactions. However, the children with typical development had robust activation in their language processing network when performing the task; they appeared to be spontaneously verbally encoding the information from the scenes that they were viewing. In contrast, the children with ASD had activation in a network associated with the processing of social information but no significant use of neural resources in the language network. This result suggested that the children with ASD were not spontaneously encoding the information into a verbal form.
- ?: Well, when I read this social interaction by political content creators, nothing happens and I don’t connect scenes and don’t encode the author’s or my or my publishing platform’s eventual position. Seems like others do but the automated categorization is still likely to be toned down or correlated with better possibilities by reason, and some wokeness courses do away with this capability again, such that people graduate to see intersectional discrimination structures and victimizations everywhere, trouble as a business sector, for which people privately readapt whole personal identities, as it is defined to operate by means of identification. Fay Freak (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Derogatory:I won't dignify this with a response except to note that I have decades of first-hand personal experience of ASD and somehow manage not use it as an excuse for questionable behaviour. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Defensive:What is your excuse, then? For things like making a personal attack on the same page where you’d voted to ban personal attacks. Nicodene (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Did I say it was? Whatever evil we attribute to such behavior would not justify attacking the person as a Nazi or an advocate of Nazism. We should be calling out the behavior, not the person, no matter what. I am proud to advocate freedom of expression, toleration, and universal coverage of English expressions in Wiktionary based on uniform standards of attestation and idiomaticity, regardless of the source or meaning. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Calling out someone for using racist/misogynistic/etc. language or linking to a neo-Nazi site in an entry isn't a "personal attack." Usually such call-outs are backed up by diffs demonstrating said behaviour. As a community we need to be able to discuss inappropriate conduct in order to effectively mitigate it. You nailed your colours to the mast long ago.[2][3][4] WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eval:Proposal: @User:Benwing2 I think that "bigoted remarks", problematic though they are, are not the source of all the bad behavior that policy needs to address. More common are uses of derogatory labeling of people as, eg, idiots, morons, drama queens, even when cleverly or humorously worded. The emphasis in establishing a behavioral norm like "No personal attacks" has to be on personal. We may need a total ban on personal attacks (including accusations of Naziism, geneder bias, etc). Enforcement of such a ban couldn't be on a hair-trigger, but it would point in the right direction. A single personal attack should require an apology or temporary block; multiple personal attacks, say, over the course of 12 months would earn longer blocks, etc. I'm not sure about how to enforce better behavior by admins and veteran users (and their bots, templates, and modules). DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support:I am in full support of your plan. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:@Benwing2 Given that neither I nor WAN are happy about this, it seems fairly clear that the underlying issue is not that this is an old boys' club, but that there is no adequate way to resolve conflicts, because consequences are essentially arbitrary, and there is a culture of admins allowing things to peter out instead of actively drawing things to a close. WAN has concluded it's because of nepotism because she's only considering me (and now, apparently Fay Freak), but doesn't seem to realise that she's got away with quite a lot of disruptive behaviour herself, and it's not like people haven't noticed ([1]). Theknightwho (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Also, IMO Fay Freak is in a class of their own with their weird views (and contorted syntax). They know a ton about obscure languages but tend to go off on bizarre rants/tangents that are best ignored; I would not hold them up as an example to be emulated. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal/Process:Ugh, User:Nicodene, you are not doing yourself any favors with this post, and you are aptly illustrating User:WordyAndNerdy's point about Wiktionary being a boy's club. Benwing2 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:This only half-addresses the issues I raised with hand-waiving. A user frequently (I admit, too frequently) addressing sloppiness in others' edits does not make their edits not sloppy. From Purple I have seen 10x more drama and the issue "is a hot-dog a sandwich", which I'd hardly call productive. Huhu has been criticized by others, as well, and is known to be abrasive in conversations. So no, it's not just knight there, it's also an uncooperative personality. I find your reply to be lacking. Vininn126 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Huhu9001 seems to do solid work in the Japanese language area and in template-space. My understanding is that the dispute between TKW and Huhu9001 arose over changes that TKW made to modules that ended up unintentionally breaking things. So, if LlywelynII can be faulted for "being sloppy," so can TKW. Purple has been around as long as I have. Wiktionary has shown habitually sloppy editors (Luciferwildcat) the door before. I wouldn't necessarily number Purple among them. In any case, the common denominator in these disputes is TKW, not anything any editor did to get on his radar. It also needs to be underscored that all of these disputes were unrelated. TKW has found himself at the centre of multiple heated disputes with unconnected editors working in different areas of this project. That isn't a coincidence. It's a sign of a pattern of escalating and personalising conflicts. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Also LlywelynII has been heavily criticized for being sloppy. The term "productive" is being used too loosely here. Vininn126 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:@WordyAndNerdy: I wasn't planning to respond but I noticed you quoted me here. The reasons why I characterized User:Purplebackpack89's posts as an attempt to fan up drama:
- Hyperbolic language ("stalking/harassment") which is frankly disrespectful to actual victims of stalking.
- Referencing TKW's desysop vote, which has little to do with the current situation (and which also seems to argue against your premise that no action is taken against problematic editors — recall that Dan got indeffed mid-vote) and quoting random comments.
- Inflammatory language, viz. "his edit was so bad", "it's likely he's following me around BECAUSE it bothers me.", etc., apparently intended to provoke TKW.
- Ioaxxere (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:"Wikistalking" is old-school wiki-jargon. "Wikihounding" or simply "hounding" has seemingly replaced it. But it needs to be remembered that PB89 has been around since 2010. It's not unexpected for a veteran editor to sometimes use older jargon. Wikistalking/hounding has never been regarded as a one-for-one equivalent of real-life stalking or even cyberstalking. It's exactly as PB89 has expressed it: combing through someone's edit history, systematically undoing their edits, inserting yourself into unrelated disputes, etc. It might not be intended as antagonistic, but it understandably comes across as such. TKW should ideally seek to moderate his tone and conduct if he wishes to avoid finding himself at the centre of conflicts (he has improved since last year). And mentioning the desysop votes was absolutely relevant. This is not an isolated incident. It's a pattern of conduct. Ignoring past incidents won't do us any favours. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Defensive:Personal:@WordyAndNerdy PB89 made an absolutely unfounded accusation of harassment towards me for a single RfD of one of his terms combined with a single comment I made about him in another RfD (which is located directly above the RfD I added), in response to a comment of his. This is not the first time he has made unfounded accusations of harassment (and not towards TKW; I reserve judgment on this matter as I haven't looked at it in detail to see what the circumstances were). PB89 seems to think he can shut down criticism of his (IMO often sloppy or ill-considered) edits with such accusations. I should also add, from statements made on his user page, he rejects some core Wiktionary principles such as SOP, and seems to have difficulty understanding why Wiktionary isn't just Wikipedia-lite; so it's not surprising to me that several users feel his edits deserve extra scrutiny. Benwing2 (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to quote myself from ten years ago (June 2014) because I found this while digging up the roadworn diff and it seems just as relevant today:
- Opinion:Personal:Expressing minority viewpoints or being the lone dissenter in an RfD discussion does not constitute disruption. The fact that we have a formal discussion process at all means that the deletion of entries isn't an open-and-shut policy-enforcement matter completely up to the discretion of administrators. It means that RfD is an open forum where people may put forward serious arguments for or against the inclusion of terms and have these arguments weighed on their merits. Sometimes arguments put forward will not align with majority opinion. Sometimes they'll challenge the soundness of our policies. That's good! We need more of that, not less. The exchange of ideas is what discussion is all about. On the issue of "drama," as an outsider who's watched these incidents transpire from the sidelines, I'm not going to disagree that PBP's behaviour has been problematic, or that it needs to change. But the passive tolerance of incivility on Wiktionary is the proverbial elephant in the room here. We don't have formal dispute resolution or mediation processes like Wikipedia, and when incivility occurs and someone gets upset, the general response, in my own experience, is getting told that occasional rudeness and hostility is par for the course and one should learn to deal with it. This is unacceptable. So if PBP has developed a flair for the dramatic, perhaps it's because Wiktionary, lacking any means for addressing civility concerns in a reasonable and orderly fashion, has left PBP no recourse but dramatics. PBP isn't the problem; PBP is a symptom of the problem. Is it really fair to punish someone for a problem that Wiktionary as a whole has helped to create?
- WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:@User:WordyandNerdy How would you categorize the types of incivility that are not personal attacks? Or are all types of incivility personal attacks, possibly veiled. I am wondering how to give shape to a civility policy beyond the most obvious. Attacking people's unstated (and possibly imagined) values, attitudes, beliefs, or motives is an example of problematic behavior, IMO. On occasion I have resorted to this, but I believe it to be undesirable in a wiki, as well as in many other environments. DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Response:@DCDuring Two examples of this are rudeness and passive aggression. We all engage in them sometimes, but they can easily have a chilling effect on productive discourse. I'm not saying we should ban them (which would probably have a much bigger chilling effect), but I do think any civility policy needs to be more nuanced than simply banning overt personal attacks and leaving it at that. Theknightwho (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Opinion:I am looking for categories of items that are relatively easy to characterize and which have a high likelihood of triggering escalation. Such categories can form the core of undesirable behavior which can be controlled. There are lots of types of uncivility that are undesirable, but are hard to police. I think 'rudeness' and 'passive-aggression' are hard to define operationally. We can't start with them or let their existence prevent action on what might be relatively easy to control. My hope is that the basic lessons of the psychology of interpersonal relations can be productively applied here. DCDuring (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive:Targeting a large number of edits by the same editor all at once is likely to make that editor feel targeted. You talk of basic psychology...basic psychology would suggest that, if a large number of edits (made in some cases over a period of years) are all targeted at once, that I would feel targeted! Anyone probably would! What's the solution here? Spread it out! Instead of targeting all my edits in a period of a few days, maybe take a couple months. Purplebackpack89 14:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I would argue that this discussion should not be a forum for airing personal grievances and settling scores. User talk pages are better for those purposes. When they fail, a mediator's assistance might be warranted. We could at least try to generalize to the matter of how, in an environment of volunteers, a patroller should select entries and edits for revision and how the patroller and 'targeted' patrollee should interact. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:"When it rains, it pours." I'd say the airing of personal grievances here was inevitable. When there's been no remedy for problematic user conduct – and when discussions on the subject have fizzled out – the result is feeling unseen, unheard, and unvalued. Such an experience can naturally leave one with a sense of injustice. But I hope that everyone's gotten things out of their system now and we can focus on finding solutions.
- Clarify:Response:I'd say that the question of how to categorise "types of incivility that are not personal attacks" depends on tone, context, and several other factors. If someone is generally in the right but is unnecessarily hasty or severe about it, I'd characterise that as "rude," "short," or "brusque." An example might be someone reverting a poorly-formatted but well-meaning edit by a newbie with "learn correct mark-up!" If they're unnecessarily harsh ("f***king learn mark-up!), I'd describe that as "abrasive," "hostile," etc. If they assert their own superiority ("learning mark-up isn't hard!"), I'd call that "snide," "condescending," etc.
- Response:Opinion:None of these present major issues in isolation. We're all human and we all err from time to time. It becomes a community problem when it's a pattern of behaviour. That said I don't think it will be necessary for any user conduct policy we create to classify types of incivility with this level of granularity. All of this could be covered by a general advisement to "please try to keep a cool head and remain respectful in discussions".
- Response:Opinion:Where I think we would need to get into specifics is with statements that express antipathy toward characteristics typically covered by human-rights legislation. There's no reason for invective statements to target someone's race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. Of course there'll be disagreement on what crosses the line. Calling someone a "dumb American" would be taking an unambiguous potshot at their nationality. But "'British people don't say 'elevator.' Why are so many Americans ignorant?" is arguably just an unhelpfully cranky statement of the fact English varies between countries. More nuanced incidents will warrant consideration on a case-by-case basis. But a blanket rule against what is generally deemed hate speech is necessary for a communal project like Wiktionary to function (and thrive!). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I would argue that this discussion should not be a forum for airing personal grievances and settling scores. User talk pages are better for those purposes. When they fail, a mediator's assistance might be warranted. We could at least try to generalize to the matter of how, in an environment of volunteers, a patroller should select entries and edits for revision and how the patroller and 'targeted' patrollee should interact. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive:Targeting a large number of edits by the same editor all at once is likely to make that editor feel targeted. You talk of basic psychology...basic psychology would suggest that, if a large number of edits (made in some cases over a period of years) are all targeted at once, that I would feel targeted! Anyone probably would! What's the solution here? Spread it out! Instead of targeting all my edits in a period of a few days, maybe take a couple months. Purplebackpack89 14:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Opinion:I am looking for categories of items that are relatively easy to characterize and which have a high likelihood of triggering escalation. Such categories can form the core of undesirable behavior which can be controlled. There are lots of types of uncivility that are undesirable, but are hard to police. I think 'rudeness' and 'passive-aggression' are hard to define operationally. We can't start with them or let their existence prevent action on what might be relatively easy to control. My hope is that the basic lessons of the psychology of interpersonal relations can be productively applied here. DCDuring (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:Response:@DCDuring Two examples of this are rudeness and passive aggression. We all engage in them sometimes, but they can easily have a chilling effect on productive discourse. I'm not saying we should ban them (which would probably have a much bigger chilling effect), but I do think any civility policy needs to be more nuanced than simply banning overt personal attacks and leaving it at that. Theknightwho (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarify:@User:WordyandNerdy How would you categorize the types of incivility that are not personal attacks? Or are all types of incivility personal attacks, possibly veiled. I am wondering how to give shape to a civility policy beyond the most obvious. Attacking people's unstated (and possibly imagined) values, attitudes, beliefs, or motives is an example of problematic behavior, IMO. On occasion I have resorted to this, but I believe it to be undesirable in a wiki, as well as in many other environments. DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to quote myself from ten years ago (June 2014) because I found this while digging up the roadworn diff and it seems just as relevant today:
- Defensive:Personal:@WordyAndNerdy PB89 made an absolutely unfounded accusation of harassment towards me for a single RfD of one of his terms combined with a single comment I made about him in another RfD (which is located directly above the RfD I added), in response to a comment of his. This is not the first time he has made unfounded accusations of harassment (and not towards TKW; I reserve judgment on this matter as I haven't looked at it in detail to see what the circumstances were). PB89 seems to think he can shut down criticism of his (IMO often sloppy or ill-considered) edits with such accusations. I should also add, from statements made on his user page, he rejects some core Wiktionary principles such as SOP, and seems to have difficulty understanding why Wiktionary isn't just Wikipedia-lite; so it's not surprising to me that several users feel his edits deserve extra scrutiny. Benwing2 (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:"Wikistalking" is old-school wiki-jargon. "Wikihounding" or simply "hounding" has seemingly replaced it. But it needs to be remembered that PB89 has been around since 2010. It's not unexpected for a veteran editor to sometimes use older jargon. Wikistalking/hounding has never been regarded as a one-for-one equivalent of real-life stalking or even cyberstalking. It's exactly as PB89 has expressed it: combing through someone's edit history, systematically undoing their edits, inserting yourself into unrelated disputes, etc. It might not be intended as antagonistic, but it understandably comes across as such. TKW should ideally seek to moderate his tone and conduct if he wishes to avoid finding himself at the centre of conflicts (he has improved since last year). And mentioning the desysop votes was absolutely relevant. This is not an isolated incident. It's a pattern of conduct. Ignoring past incidents won't do us any favours. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Huhu and Purple have both been criticized for not being productive. Mahāgaja's complaint has been addressed as their behavior was problematic. Please don't ignore these aspects in your diagnosis. Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Personal:It isn't feasible to "avoid any future conflicts for good." Such an approach will only worsen conflicts that inevitably emerge. Ignoring problems doesn't resolve them. It's like putting a lid on a pot and expecting it not to make a huge mess when it boils over. If TKW had been given guidance at an early stage, this issue may not have grown to this extent. Now there's at least five productive contributors (me, Huhu9001, LlywelynII, Mahāgaja, Purplebackback89) who find his admin conduct to be a recurrent issue. Wiktionary desperately needs both formal dispute resolution processes and the willingness to enact them. This isn't about "fan[ning] up drama." Seeing it characterised as such with no pushback (except from TKW, to his credit) does little to reassure me that Wiktionary is interested in having difficult conversations as a community and making necessary systemic changes. I have noted that TKW hasn't been as combative as in past incidents. That gives me hope that there's room for course correction. But my continued participation here is contingent on resolving the current policy vacuum. We cannot have a repeat of an admin (Equinox) functionally being given carte blanche to be as hostile and combative as he pleases for years because he also makes valuable contributions. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
mostly unproductive
- I support having actual bigotry be punished, not “one of the random usage quotes you found turns out to be from a far-right website”. For all I know one or more of the countless linguists I’ve cited over the years could have been a literal Nazi and I’d have had no idea whatsoever. Should I be put on trial too?
- I get that you think I’m “spewing crap” and such but to me this is a genuine concern. I’ve seen more than one community turn unbearably toxic from this sort of thing. Nicodene (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that you being on a far-right website would be obvious. CitationsFreak (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you’re there to actually read the article or check out the website, yes. It’s never occurred to me to examine a site like that when I’m just there to grab a quick usage example that Google found for me. Now I will, though, out of terror of being accused of “Shoehorning neo-Nazi propaganda into random entries”. Nicodene (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You probably should read the articles, at least the parts that give context for the word. (Plus, FF literally said "[N]eo-Nazis are […] possible contributors – and [quoting them] shows that Wiktionary knows its onions." in Talk:smash, the talk page for the page where he added the Daily Stormer quote.) CitationsFreak (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I don’t agree with hosting (even innocuous) quotes from such people. Nicodene (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- No one innocently stumbles onto the Daily Stormer website off Google. Particularly not when Google is likely to filter results in compliance with local laws. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is quite literally the only plausible explanation. How else do you imagine he found “smash” used in such a specific sense, at the same time on that site as various others, if not via a search engine? He’s a Nazi with superhuman memory or perhaps incredibly lucky? Nicodene (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- No one innocently stumbles onto the Daily Stormer website off Google. Particularly not when Google is likely to filter results in compliance with local laws. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I don’t agree with hosting (even innocuous) quotes from such people. Nicodene (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You probably should read the articles, at least the parts that give context for the word. (Plus, FF literally said "[N]eo-Nazis are […] possible contributors – and [quoting them] shows that Wiktionary knows its onions." in Talk:smash, the talk page for the page where he added the Daily Stormer quote.) CitationsFreak (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you’re there to actually read the article or check out the website, yes. It’s never occurred to me to examine a site like that when I’m just there to grab a quick usage example that Google found for me. Now I will, though, out of terror of being accused of “Shoehorning neo-Nazi propaganda into random entries”. Nicodene (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess, it is working towards all the political bias as such, not only nazi linguists. It is not a good idea to rely on linguistic works of Josef Stalin or Nikolai Marr. But it does not mean that all the Soviet linguists are complete garbage, even if they write some Soviet propaganda in they works sometimes. It is a difference between quoting a story of H.P. Lovecraft or Gabrielle d'Annunzio and quoting a Nazi propaganda paper, even if all of them have some political bias, but a Nazi propaganda paper is made for the propaganda reason, while a story about monsters or flowers has some other main goal. As Bogdanov-Malinovsky said, it is always possible to find political bias behind any text if you dig hard enough. As of me, when i choose quotes for Russian words, i find it hard to find any Soviet or Russian well-known author not involved in any political ideology at all (maybe except of Pelevin or Nabokov). Tollef Salemann (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that you being on a far-right website would be obvious. CitationsFreak (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just don’t see it, I guess. E’s comment was catty, without a doubt, but how one goes from “he called me a drama queen” to “he hates women” I genuinely don’t understand. Or how one could seriously think FayFreak, of all people, to be far-right. Nicodene (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- (e/c) I'm actually mystified in the other direction, how one could have avoided noticing it; his leanings are apparent (and even prove useful sometimes, e.g. that he knew where to look to aid with Talk:ᛦ), although I made clear early on that open Nazis / Nazism isn't welcome on this site. (Beyond that, it's as Benwing says, he makes useful contributions in many areas, and disruptively best-ignored tangents and misdefinitions [see e.g. the recent discussion of Tatbestand, or Talk:negligence per se] in other areas.) - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I genuinely read (past and present tense) him as left-wing. Maybe I’m naïve. Nicodene (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: In the past I have not well known how one could read me as anything, social cognition impaired, you know. To jump on the bandwagon of any political wing I would have to go outside or at least expose myself to some community, otherwise my personal weltanschauung at any given time is decidedly idiosyncratic. Now I hit thirty engaging none but my computer screen, library books and professors, not having been on intimate terms with any peer, it is unclear how (in this alexithymia) one could picture, or essentialize, allegiance, anymore than that of a faceless cyberhacker, only because I randomly, eclectically, made my awareness of ideological trench wars, which I never experienced other than by second hand, noted by coloured language, which cannot be extirpated, as by dint of the idiom principle they constitute the metaphors you live by. I don’t live by them, they are just epistemic content providers with signalling hazards for me.
- Parents have evinced fatal neglectfulness when the first books I got after elementary school, which was a waste of time as all succeeding one, was some serious crackpot stuff ordered from some physical malvertisement, after which, without any attachment and due to genuine enthusiasm for seeing things from unconvential perspectives, I went fully down all conspiracy rabbitholes and also got the hang of online extremism extensively, while being excluded from school for patterning some bully up (legal loophole in compulsory education, you just make them not want you pending further clarification, may also be rightful self-defence, doesn’t matter, teachers are only right themselves always), though to be fair that was the triggering event for an eventual upcoming diagnosis that would have to lay the foundations for special support (which never took place, had to self-learn), and reading books is good either way, from my experience. There you start general epistemology and language science, because there must be methods to parse and evaluate any information. Without methods I am a non-responder, there are no “such people”, only information and art.
- Arguing around is underrated, that’s why I am a jurist, after arguemaxxing since that time, preferably with freethinkers of course. Some write to me though and assume I am lefty for their own convenience and I help them to solve their self-care questions their DMN, trying them to fit into society somewhere, burdens them with, you are not extra. Nazis get “each to their own” as well. They are easy! And what do you think happens if someone approaches me and wants to talk me into the message of Jesus? Normally people just dismiss him but I extend my walk until dusk in order to dissuade him and convert him to infidelity, while equating Jesus and Hitler, the mindsets of such proselytizers, climate activists and terrorists of all kind on multiple occasions. All ideologies are wrong. Their proponents just made unfortunate experiences and now everything they suffer is their bedlam governed by imaginary friends and icons. I can only consent with individual policies, never partisan.
- You never fail to conjecture too much into people, so I still expand. It was doubly difficult to read the room if a school assistant (so an apparent pedagogue translates, UK equivalents seem to exist not, unless you substantiate the contrary) engenders an observer effect. Protection layers of abstraction are between me and any input, mirror neurons unknown. It still baffles me how much intertextual association can haunt people. That that much of a social feedback loop experience is for allists, that someone not distancing himself from a Nazi player (which is unmotivated, as laid out, in the way that I don’t distance myself from cows and gavials, it is a different species) is permanent, pervasive, and personal. And your “social circle” is actually infectious, since you respond to social confirmation! I mean, by analogy, if that’s an inappropriate image to you, given that for my configuration social behaviour is not open to intuition but only cognitive simulation, which expressed WordyAndNerdy impudently calls “inane blather”. Apparently being unemotional and putting things into perspective is inane. Fay Freak (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I genuinely read (past and present tense) him as left-wing. Maybe I’m naïve. Nicodene (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- (e/c) I'm actually mystified in the other direction, how one could have avoided noticing it; his leanings are apparent (and even prove useful sometimes, e.g. that he knew where to look to aid with Talk:ᛦ), although I made clear early on that open Nazis / Nazism isn't welcome on this site. (Beyond that, it's as Benwing says, he makes useful contributions in many areas, and disruptively best-ignored tangents and misdefinitions [see e.g. the recent discussion of Tatbestand, or Talk:negligence per se] in other areas.) - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good Lord. The Daily Stormer is a neo-Nazi website. There is absolutely no ambiguity on that front. Shoehorning neo-Nazi propaganda into random entries is detrimental to Wiktionary's reliability, whether it's as the result of 1) an edgelord trying to stir up trouble, 2) a free-speech absolutist making some self-sabotaging "Wiktionary is not censored" point, 3) or an actual neo-Nazi evangelising their real beliefs. I also did not make "questionable accusations of misogyny" against Equinox. I made one (1) reference to his use of "misogynistic language" in connection to me. I still have the screenshot of him referring to my Wiktionary history as the "tragic tale of the abused wife who comes back" in the Discord last year. I would've supplied that as evidence privately if this matter had ever reached a higher level. But Equinox's departure has rendered a need for that moot. That doesn't absolve Wiktionary of its deep-rooted systemic issues as a community. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It seems clear from the edit you’ve linked that FF used Google (or Bing or whatever) to gather quotes containing various senses of “smash”. One of which happened to be that website. For the record not all of us even what Daily Stormer is, and I sure wouldn’t have guessed correctly based on the two sentences Fayfreak got from it. I support removing that quote, to avoid directing any traffic to that site, but I can’t understand seeing so much malice in a simple oversight.
- At least with E there is a level of actual malice. The comment was catty, needlessly personal - yes. But misogynistic? Would he have not been catty about it all if you were male? And apparently he thought you yourself were misogynistic for re-adding “cisgender” to the entry for febfem? I just don’t understand any of this. Nicodene (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Getting really sick of being gaslit and told I don't understand what misogyny is as a woman. I'll finish attesting an in-progress entry and then I'm done. I've given enough second chances to this site. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's also clear that you didn't even read my comment because it's clear that the "misogynstic language" was a reference to a Discord comment and not the transphobic jibe at febfem. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have read your comment as well as his. And mentioned that the latter was rude and explained how I read it. He was mocking your behaviour as far as I can tell not your gender. If it is misogynistic then you could just say how?
- The edit summary he left on febfem jokingly says that you hate women. I don’t understand the rest of that at all. Nicodene (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @WordyAndNerdy Please (try to) ignore comments of this sort, if possible. As I said to TKW (using the equivalent Spanish proverb), a closed mouth catches no flies, and (IMO at least) it's best to give no air to people who spew crap. Benwing2 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- My input was specifically invited in this discussion. It's turned into a beatdown, exactly as I feared it would, because some people seemingly don't want to inspect Wiktionary's hostile, corrosive side too closely. There's a reason I only made two oblique references to my gender in my first ten years on Wiktionary. Suffice it to say that existing openly as a woman on the Internet is generally not conducive to positive experiences. This discussion has only served to reaffirm that. I've had others firmly object to my judgements/opinions/etc. before, but I've never been condescended to and gaslit by multiple users like this. I'm tired and disgusted and done. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- “Suffice it to say that existing openly as a woman on the Internet is generally not conducive to positive experiences.” Don’t think so. Most places on the internet are generally not conducive to positive experiences, they would have to be specialized to be otherwise: minorities stick together. “Deep-rooted systemic issues as a community” exactly I see not; though there are ways to feel like it, using loaded language with spicy twang is much better than daily business outside. Wiktionary is goodt. You wouldn’t be here if it were unsafe, it’s not just hope for revenge on mirror-images of abusers, I hope.
- You should by now know how men work; they structure their whole livelihoods, and by extension that of others, about enjoying one of their preferred sex two days a week (average) and thus behave differently depending on whether women are present or not, anxious if they are unsure; you are lucky not to have all the T and would wish to go back if you ever found yourself to wake up as a man. In this respect I understand Equinox as, at bottom, sincere in assuring himself that you are, in fact, cisgender. I am sorry for myself I have talk about humans’ constant rutting now, I have never started this topic, but when we have resolved the whys of its arising it can go away. None of the male sex who does not attempt to expend exceptional empathy owns up to this actual concern without a level of cheekiness, unconscious of it himself. Don’t be condescended, it is an opportunity to set the hierarchies straight, possibly appearing smarter yourself! Cognitive reframing trumps both action-based coping and venting. Indeed I strive to beget positive attitudes and don’t say anything demotivating to people, gaslighting or not from my side (not that I would know; a heart for men and women both anyway). Fay Freak (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- My input was specifically invited in this discussion. It's turned into a beatdown, exactly as I feared it would, because some people seemingly don't want to inspect Wiktionary's hostile, corrosive side too closely. There's a reason I only made two oblique references to my gender in my first ten years on Wiktionary. Suffice it to say that existing openly as a woman on the Internet is generally not conducive to positive experiences. This discussion has only served to reaffirm that. I've had others firmly object to my judgements/opinions/etc. before, but I've never been condescended to and gaslit by multiple users like this. I'm tired and disgusted and done. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's also clear that you didn't even read my comment because it's clear that the "misogynstic language" was a reference to a Discord comment and not the transphobic jibe at febfem. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Getting really sick of being gaslit and told I don't understand what misogyny is as a woman. I'll finish attesting an in-progress entry and then I'm done. I've given enough second chances to this site. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive?:@Vininn126 it is irrelevant whether a particular editor is perceived to be "productive" or "sloppy". That shouldn't be an excuse to be combative with them, or escalate things Purplebackpack89 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Opinion:I've had limited but productive interaction with both TKW with WAN. I respect them both as editors and hope they can both find a way to continue editing. Contributing to Wiktionary is a particularly thankless endeavor and I imagine that, like many editors, each has received much less praise than they deserve for their efforts while being on the receiving end of a disproportionate amount of criticism. They, and other editors, have good reason to feel aggrieved and I think that we, as a community, could do a better job of shutting down bad behavior earlier and providing a forum to air grievances where the involved parties could get some perspective from uninvolved editors instead of feeling like they have to personally defend themselves against attacks. I would hope such a forum could provide actionable support for legitimate grievances, perspective for editors who feel slighted by innocuous remarks or edits, and a quick boot for anyone using it in bad faith. JeffDoozan (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:I'll be honest. I think too many people here have stopped actually building a dictionary. I don't like that. So I'll be absolutely clear as to my position once, and I sincerely hope that at least some of the people here that are trying to figure out how to emit as much aggression as possible onto unknowns on the internet will find a better hobby.
- I didn't become an admin to enforce any rules on "civility" or the like. I simply don't care. I should probably start helping out with closing RFDs and RFVs more often (I have been pretty busy with real-life things, but right now I have a bit more time), but other than that I am a volunteer as much as anyone else on this website, and I don't come here to do busywork I wouldn't even do if I were paid.
- So, basically: If you need a nanny, this isn't a website for you.
- If you get called an idiot, or stupid: Tough luck, you making a BP post on that only proves this statement.
- Actual slurs are a different matter, and we shouldn't tolerate those in any shape or form. Use your head.
- We aim to be a full dictionary. We are also a politically neutral dictionary.
- Yes, that means we have entries for slurs, Neonazi slang, communistic formation and whatnot.
- We shouldn't use politically loaded quotes unless necessary, but sometimes they are: 99% of literature written on the territory of modern Russia in languages other than Russian will be loaded with communistic messages, that doesn't mean we shouldn't quote them.
- If anything, quoting anything that shows a capitalistic or religious view (including the Bible even!) should be as problematic as neonazism or communism.
- If you can't handle us hosting such quotes when they are necessary, maybe lexicography isn't your thing.
- If you find something you think wasn't necessary, remember: assume good faith. That's like page one of our whole dictionary. I feel this rule that should be plastered all over the website is forgotten too easily in the last few years. The person adding a neonazistic quote isn't necessarily a neonazi themselves, they may just be lazy and have found this quote before any others. That's why I add communistic quotes for Ingrian, because that's most of the literature, and it's easier for me to just take a book and add quotes word for word than look through the entire corpus hoping to find a sentence where the word "religion" isn't followed by "is complete bollocks".
- The recent amount of technical "fixes" has grown out of control.
- Entries go first, templates go second, and markup goes last.
- Going out to change any technical feature of a language you aren't personally in the process of adding entries for should be done only at the request/agreement of the ones that do edit it. In the best case, you will have to re-do these changes later on when an active editor appears, and in the worst case you will lose every single editor that is invested in working on this dictionary at all.
- In the end, seriously, I would rather have an editor do constructive work and be a little rude than an editor doing nothing and be the nicest person in the world.
- I'd say 99% (yes, I like that number) of the languages in our dictionary are grossly underrepresented. To give an example: Just today Ingrian (which has an estimated 20 native speakers) surpassed the closely-related Estonian (which has an estimated 1.2 million native speakers) in terms of number of lemmas, and the situation in Africa and Southeast Asia is even worse.
- If an admin is monitoring your edits, it's because you apparently did something wrong. Doesn't mean you're a bad editor, just means you have room to grow. See what was changed and try applying that in the future.
- Now, if you continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, then you'll at some point get the message "Please stop, and if you don't you'll get a block", and at that point you should really stop. We cannot keep fixing your mistakes for you.
- To the admins monitoring: If you tell the people why you're going to monitor their edits, that will probably be more effective than just acting like you're not doing that, or only explaining it after they have completely freaked out.
- Maybe let's stop trying to figure out who's right and wrong and start actually working on the dictionary? Does that sound like a plan? In that case, we don't need any conflict resolution, because nobody will offend anyone and nobody will get offended. Sounds like a win-win to me.
- I didn't become an admin to enforce any rules on "civility" or the like. I simply don't care. I should probably start helping out with closing RFDs and RFVs more often (I have been pretty busy with real-life things, but right now I have a bit more time), but other than that I am a volunteer as much as anyone else on this website, and I don't come here to do busywork I wouldn't even do if I were paid.
- Because seriously, what in the world is keeping you from editing so much that you absolutely need me and a few dozen other editors to write this type of enormous text just to solve it? Thadh (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Opinion:Personal:Here's my 2c, most of which has been said by me or others elsewhere.
- Wiktionary tends to be dominated by a relatively small group of "guardians", such as Knightwho, Equinox and Fay
- Some of those guardians (again, Knightwho, Equinox and Fay) have problems getting along with non-guardians
- The guardians aren't that interested in holding each other accountable
- Some of the guardians are OK with driving non-guardians from the project. At least one of them (rather foolishly) stated that publicly.
- This is in conflict with one of the base principles of all Wikimedia projects: that anyone can edit them
- With great power comes great responsibilities. In exchange for being awarded the blocking tool, admins should be expected to be held to a higher standard than non-admins
- There is no deadline. Except for obvious vandalism, there's no need for minor tweaks to be done immediately, nor is there any need for them to be done by any one editor in particular
- It's been pointed out quite a few times, by several different editors, that Knightwho has a problem with conflict and escalation (one example being that, when I felt harassed, he just went further and further back into my edits, rather than stepping away)
- Remedies have been offered to KnightWho on how to avoid conflict, and he's ignored them
What does this mean in real terms?
- De-escalation is a good and necessary thing
- If the parties are unwilling to de-escalate, remedies like two-way interaction bans need to be available.
Purplebackpack89 15:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive?: I am going to be perfectly frank. Someone shouldn't be an admin if they aren't willing to enforce user conduct standards. Civility is one of the five pillars on Wikipedia. There is no reason for a load-bearing policy to be entirely absent on Wiktionary except to preserve and enable a toxic culture. Any rank-and-file editor could theoretically do menial maintenance tasks such as closing RfVs. I had a short stint running Word of the Day back in 2012 and I was (and remain) a non-admin. The necessity of admins is not in doing maintenance tasks but in keeping the peace. With the ability to block disruptive users, they might be thought of as a wiki's police. Ideally, blocking shouldn't be the first line of defence. Problem users can be dealt with through guidance, de-escalation, interaction bans, mediation (if such a process existed here). When one of the few woman editors sticks her head above the parapet to speak on her negative experiences, she shouldn't receive gaslighting, condescension, and a stunningly weird and deeply discomfitting jeremiad about how men are too horny to work with women in response. It's impossible to have a serious conversation when this type of rank nonsense is tacitly allowed. Was this thread started to have a discussion about how Wiktionary can create dispute resolution processes? Or is it an exercise in hand-waving and navel-gazing ("Why can't everyone just get along?") without any actual commitment to examining Wiktionary's systemic issues and implementing badly-needed changes? The fact that a civility policy seems slated to be rejected by a landslide beggars belief. I honestly don't think anything is going to change without WMF intervention. The rot has spread too deep for Wiktionary to keep its own house. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I did hope that it would lead to the former, myself. (In fact, I hoped that we would make a dispute resolution process.) CitationsFreak (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Process:Defensive:It won't. I went into this discussion skeptical, and it's affirmed every misgiving I had. Even the level heads in the room seem to be taking a hands-off approach. No one wants to the one to button down and call for change. Tall poppies are smacked down; squeaky wheels are dismantled. Doesn't matter if they've got 14 years of solid work behind them. Preserving a cootie-free space for the boys' club is apparently more important than building a dictionary. Heaven forbid anyone be required to exercise personal restraint in what is functionally a professional setting. That's woke pinko free-speech suppression or something. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:Request:@WordyAndNerdy I made a (bare-bones) proposal above, do you have any thoughts about that? User:CitationsFreak and User:Theknightwho are the only ones who made any comments about it so far. I am trying to find something that will both have some substance in it and work in practice (two aims that aren't easy to reconcile). Benwing2 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Response:Do you mean this? I'd considered the possibility of a semi-formal mediation process myself. But such a scheme would be just as easy to game as a more legalistic one. Too often subjective judgments inform individual perceptions of a situation. The scale will always be weighted in favour of those with power and the right connections. People are more willing to assume good faith of people they admire and/or consider friends. Which is why I believe an intermediate stage in the dispute-resolution process would be necessary. Problem users (including admins) could be restricted to 1RR and required to bring concerns to the BP to ensure uninvolved eyes assess the situation. We'd need to be comfortable with enforcement being applied asymmetrically in some cases. Sometimes both "sides" in a conflict aren't equally guilty of bad behaviour. An admin who is habitually hostile/antagonising isn't the same as a rank-and-file editor who reacts poorly in an isolated instance. That's a level of nuance more legalistic approaches are generally better at handling. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Proposal:@WordyAndNerdy Thank you for your response. I think in general, edit wars should quickly be brought to the Beer parlour; if you get to the point that you've done 3 reverts (or even two), you should stop and bring the discussion to the BP. At least, this is what I've done and I have seen others do the same. We are generally less tolerant of edit warring than Wikipedia is. Maybe something like this can be put into a formal policy. I do agree that sometimes one person will be right and other wrong, although it's not always apparent to outside admins. As an example, there was a dispute a few years ago between User:Saranamd (aka Tibidibi/Karaeng Matoaya) and B2V22BHARAT. Both users asserted the other was wrong and was edit warring; eventually it was clear that the latter user was in the wrong and was blocked for a week (causing them to leave), but it took awhile to sort this out, esp. since there was no admin dedicated to the dispute. I agree in general that any process can be gamed, but having the process is better than not having one at all, and I think maybe a mediation process with a single uninvolved admin could be an intermediate step required before a full legalistic panel. I have read through such panels in Wikipedia, and they're exhausting just to read (much less to participate in, I'm sure). Such panels may be necessary in Wikipedia because they are often caused by underlying real-world political disputes (abortion and other US political issues; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; a whole host of Eastern European conflicts; etc.). But in my experience these disputes are thankfully less relevant in Wiktionary, where the disputes instead are more on the personal level. I invite others to contribute suggestions regarding what should be considered actionable, what the steps are in the process, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal+:Opinion:You're correct that people are often unaware of points of contention outside their own personal experience and knowledge base. That's why it seems integral for project Wiktionary to strive to both invite and sustain a diverse editor base in order to help counteract systemic bias. While I'd personally prefer a more structured ("legalistic") approach, any dispute-resolution process would be a vast improvement on none. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Proposal:@WordyAndNerdy Thank you for your response. I think in general, edit wars should quickly be brought to the Beer parlour; if you get to the point that you've done 3 reverts (or even two), you should stop and bring the discussion to the BP. At least, this is what I've done and I have seen others do the same. We are generally less tolerant of edit warring than Wikipedia is. Maybe something like this can be put into a formal policy. I do agree that sometimes one person will be right and other wrong, although it's not always apparent to outside admins. As an example, there was a dispute a few years ago between User:Saranamd (aka Tibidibi/Karaeng Matoaya) and B2V22BHARAT. Both users asserted the other was wrong and was edit warring; eventually it was clear that the latter user was in the wrong and was blocked for a week (causing them to leave), but it took awhile to sort this out, esp. since there was no admin dedicated to the dispute. I agree in general that any process can be gamed, but having the process is better than not having one at all, and I think maybe a mediation process with a single uninvolved admin could be an intermediate step required before a full legalistic panel. I have read through such panels in Wikipedia, and they're exhausting just to read (much less to participate in, I'm sure). Such panels may be necessary in Wikipedia because they are often caused by underlying real-world political disputes (abortion and other US political issues; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; a whole host of Eastern European conflicts; etc.). But in my experience these disputes are thankfully less relevant in Wiktionary, where the disputes instead are more on the personal level. I invite others to contribute suggestions regarding what should be considered actionable, what the steps are in the process, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Response:Do you mean this? I'd considered the possibility of a semi-formal mediation process myself. But such a scheme would be just as easy to game as a more legalistic one. Too often subjective judgments inform individual perceptions of a situation. The scale will always be weighted in favour of those with power and the right connections. People are more willing to assume good faith of people they admire and/or consider friends. Which is why I believe an intermediate stage in the dispute-resolution process would be necessary. Problem users (including admins) could be restricted to 1RR and required to bring concerns to the BP to ensure uninvolved eyes assess the situation. We'd need to be comfortable with enforcement being applied asymmetrically in some cases. Sometimes both "sides" in a conflict aren't equally guilty of bad behaviour. An admin who is habitually hostile/antagonising isn't the same as a rank-and-file editor who reacts poorly in an isolated instance. That's a level of nuance more legalistic approaches are generally better at handling. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:Request:@WordyAndNerdy I made a (bare-bones) proposal above, do you have any thoughts about that? User:CitationsFreak and User:Theknightwho are the only ones who made any comments about it so far. I am trying to find something that will both have some substance in it and work in practice (two aims that aren't easy to reconcile). Benwing2 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Process:Defensive:It won't. I went into this discussion skeptical, and it's affirmed every misgiving I had. Even the level heads in the room seem to be taking a hands-off approach. No one wants to the one to button down and call for change. Tall poppies are smacked down; squeaky wheels are dismantled. Doesn't matter if they've got 14 years of solid work behind them. Preserving a cootie-free space for the boys' club is apparently more important than building a dictionary. Heaven forbid anyone be required to exercise personal restraint in what is functionally a professional setting. That's woke pinko free-speech suppression or something. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I am cautiously more hopeful; I read support on the vote page, even from oppose voters, for having a thought-out civility policy; the thing which the vote looks set to defeat is one editor's attempt to win a personal dispute by pushing through a page from 2006 seemingly without even reading/comprehending it enough to notice it still said one of the processes involved notifying Jimbo. I'd like to hope a guideline that doesn't posit "Head Boy of the boy's club should be notified", a modern civility policy written in 2024, is attainable. (I also think ensuring the policy / community has mechanisms for dealing with gaming is a valid and serious concern; on Wikipedia, my anecdotal count is that it seems like about half the trans editors who've dared edit trans topics there have gotten baited/gamed and censured/censored/banned; I think we do need to think about how to write a civility policy that doesn't empower the one or two people taking the stance that someone calling out / disliking Nazism is the one in the wrong.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I'm also not aware of any openly trans or non-binary Wiktionarians. I'm sure there's a couple but how many want to hang around with all the trans-antagonistic soapboxing that goes on here? Our collection of trans-related terms has seemingly been built primarily by cis people. Imagine if all entries for a language were created exclusively by non-native speakers. How would that shape Wiktionary's coverage of that language in subtle ways? I mean, the general lack of AFAB editors on here is of genuine lexicographical concern. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive?:While not the same issue, I feel the same way about racial issues. I've been called epithets by users/IPs and had to go on resource dives for showing that the most basic terms are actually offensive, see the history of all lives matter, specifically this edit, for an example. However, one thing I do think I've learned here, for better or worse, is that it's not worth it to get into spats even if you're in the right. It just bogs you down and puts a negative light on you. For myself, I just keep mental track of folks I've interacted with and act accordingly, such as with Equinox. Not worth it to argue anymore. That obviously doesn't work for everyone, and it's not easy, but it keeps me sane on this project, especially after 2022 with the discussions leading up to the creation of WT:DEROGATORY. I just hope that one day this project will be welcoming enough to where we can get actual coverage done for the languages that really need it. AG202 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support:Same here. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Response:I'm not sure if I'd personally label all lives matter as "offensive." That phrase seems to be employed more as a silencing tactic than a provocation. One might argue it's the racial analogue of not all men. That kind of complexity can be difficult to condense into a context label. I might've offloaded it onto usage note as happened at TERF. But I'm willing to accept that I've got a large blind spot here. It's definitely good to have a diverse editor pool for this reason. Not everyone is going to catch errors that result from their own limited experience and/or biases. As for continuing to edit despite it all, I'm not sure that's feasible for me, given it's clear I'm unwelcome here. There was a time when it took me more than a year to point out that an editor (not Equinox, to be clear) was habitually inserting inflammatory quotes from manosphere blogs into random entries. I don't have the patience for tying myself in knots trying to explain why that's a bad thing without referencing systemic oppression and prejudice anymore. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Supportive-Personal:@WordyAndNerdy I'd like to clarify that you are definitely not generally unwelcome. Yes, some contributors have essentially told you to fuck off, but I for one appreciate your contributions. E.g. you have added a lot of info about fandom ships, something I know next to nothing about; from reviewing your contributions, I also see stuff related to non-binary and other gender-non-conforming communities (if that is the right term), social-media memes and trends, and other stuff that's important for keeping Wiktionary up-to-date and representative of all (sub)cultures, not just the dominant one. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Response:Thank you for the kind words. One of the most gratifying things was randomly seeing "WIKTIONARY HAS SHIP NAMES???" in a tweet. Knowing my work is being referenced by people outside the fandom sphere is cool. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Supportive-Personal:@WordyAndNerdy I'd like to clarify that you are definitely not generally unwelcome. Yes, some contributors have essentially told you to fuck off, but I for one appreciate your contributions. E.g. you have added a lot of info about fandom ships, something I know next to nothing about; from reviewing your contributions, I also see stuff related to non-binary and other gender-non-conforming communities (if that is the right term), social-media memes and trends, and other stuff that's important for keeping Wiktionary up-to-date and representative of all (sub)cultures, not just the dominant one. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal?:I can think of at least two who have openly identified themselves; I'm sure -sche knows of more. I'm not sure however if either of the people I'm thinking of have contributed to trans-related entries. One used to be one of the most active contributors, esp. for bot-related work, but left for reasons (I think) are at least partly unrelated to their trans status. The other is still active but has stayed away from this discussion. Benwing2 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Response:Opinion:Nor are they required engage in this discussion in a "any marginalised individual in a group is required to serve as a spokesperson" kind of way. I just think it would just be nice to have more LGBT editors onboard to help counteract systemic bias. As rewarding as it has been documenting trans-related coinages on Wiktionary, it can feel like talking over actual trans people or treating them as anthropological curiosities at times. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive?:While not the same issue, I feel the same way about racial issues. I've been called epithets by users/IPs and had to go on resource dives for showing that the most basic terms are actually offensive, see the history of all lives matter, specifically this edit, for an example. However, one thing I do think I've learned here, for better or worse, is that it's not worth it to get into spats even if you're in the right. It just bogs you down and puts a negative light on you. For myself, I just keep mental track of folks I've interacted with and act accordingly, such as with Equinox. Not worth it to argue anymore. That obviously doesn't work for everyone, and it's not easy, but it keeps me sane on this project, especially after 2022 with the discussions leading up to the creation of WT:DEROGATORY. I just hope that one day this project will be welcoming enough to where we can get actual coverage done for the languages that really need it. AG202 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:If Wiktionary really is a "boys' club", may I suggest you take the first step to improve this state of affairs by de-sysopping yourself, having been one of the boys in charge for years now? "Walk the walk", as they say.
- Personal:For the record I don't buy it. A perennially catty user (Equinox) being catty to yet another person is not because they're a woman, it's because they're just another person. FayFreak is not a Nazi whatsoever, he's a "free speech" champion. You disagree with him, I disagree with him as well – the difference is you see burning malice where I see a kind of optimistic naïveté. Nicodene (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Defensive:What part of "I was (and remain) a non-admin" do you not understand? Would be really nice if you actually followed this discussion instead of shadowboxing against things that no one said. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Derogatory:What part of my replying to -sche, not you, do you not understand? Nicodene (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Defensive:Personal:Then use @ to make it clear who to whom you're speaking because this thread is playing fast and loose with indentation. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Your hostile remarks toward -sche are also completely unwarranted. Maybe sit this one out if you're just gonna throw peanuts from the gallery. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Derogatory:Basic reading comprehension on your part is not my responsibility. How "[you've been] one of the boys in charge for years now" could possibly be construed as being about you is beyond me.
- Personal:Defensive:I don't think what I've said (and I stand by it) comes anywhere near frivolously accusing someone of Nazism. If you'd like to apply your own apparent standards for hostility to yourself and "sit this one out", I'll be happy to follow suit. Nicodene (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:Can we please de-escalate here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Derogatory:What part of my replying to -sche, not you, do you not understand? Nicodene (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Defensive:What part of "I was (and remain) a non-admin" do you not understand? Would be really nice if you actually followed this discussion instead of shadowboxing against things that no one said. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I'm also not aware of any openly trans or non-binary Wiktionarians. I'm sure there's a couple but how many want to hang around with all the trans-antagonistic soapboxing that goes on here? Our collection of trans-related terms has seemingly been built primarily by cis people. Imagine if all entries for a language were created exclusively by non-native speakers. How would that shape Wiktionary's coverage of that language in subtle ways? I mean, the general lack of AFAB editors on here is of genuine lexicographical concern. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personal:Feel free to start a de-sysop vote for me, but something tells me your idea of what an admin should or shouldn't want or have to do is not the community consensus. Thadh (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:I did hope that it would lead to the former, myself. (In fact, I hoped that we would make a dispute resolution process.) CitationsFreak (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opinion:Defensive?: I am going to be perfectly frank. Someone shouldn't be an admin if they aren't willing to enforce user conduct standards. Civility is one of the five pillars on Wikipedia. There is no reason for a load-bearing policy to be entirely absent on Wiktionary except to preserve and enable a toxic culture. Any rank-and-file editor could theoretically do menial maintenance tasks such as closing RfVs. I had a short stint running Word of the Day back in 2012 and I was (and remain) a non-admin. The necessity of admins is not in doing maintenance tasks but in keeping the peace. With the ability to block disruptive users, they might be thought of as a wiki's police. Ideally, blocking shouldn't be the first line of defence. Problem users can be dealt with through guidance, de-escalation, interaction bans, mediation (if such a process existed here). When one of the few woman editors sticks her head above the parapet to speak on her negative experiences, she shouldn't receive gaslighting, condescension, and a stunningly weird and deeply discomfitting jeremiad about how men are too horny to work with women in response. It's impossible to have a serious conversation when this type of rank nonsense is tacitly allowed. Was this thread started to have a discussion about how Wiktionary can create dispute resolution processes? Or is it an exercise in hand-waving and navel-gazing ("Why can't everyone just get along?") without any actual commitment to examining Wiktionary's systemic issues and implementing badly-needed changes? The fact that a civility policy seems slated to be rejected by a landslide beggars belief. I honestly don't think anything is going to change without WMF intervention. The rot has spread too deep for Wiktionary to keep its own house. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Process:If we subtracted all of the statements in this discussion that themselves were about individual persons' values, attitudes, and beliefs, including defensive reactions, we would have a very short discussion indeed. I don't see that most of the discussion here is contributing to the topic-creator's concerns or even to an improvement of that statement of concerns. DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support:I completely agree with you. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)